Facts : On July 9, 1998, French deputies challenged before the
Constitutional Council (Conseil Constitutionnel) the proposed Law relating
to the remedies against exclusion in France (the « Loi d'orientation
relative à la lutte contre les exclusions »). They claimed that articles 51,
52, 107, 119 and 152 of the Law were unconstitutional. The Law was drafted
and proposed to remedy the lack of available housing in France. Article 51
provided for a special taxation on unoccupied housing when the landlord did
not even seek to rent it. Article 52 provided for a special procedure
whereby the State could requisition unoccupied buildings and provide them to
homeless people in exchange for compensation to the landlord.

Holding: articles 51, 52 of the proposed Law were constitutional.

Reasoning: the French constitution provides that "the French state
guarantees to any citizen and his family the necessary conditions to his
development (...), protects his health, his material security and his rest
and leisure. Any individual who is unable to work because of his age, his
mental or physical condition, or his financial situation has the right to
receive a financial aid from the collectivity". The Constitution also
guarantees the principle of human dignity against any degradation. As a
result, the right to obtain a decent housing is a constitutional principle
available to any French citizen. Article 51 which imposed a special tax on
unoccupied housing contributed to give everybody this constitutional right
to housing, even if it imposed an unequal taxation on some landlord.
Under article 52 local governmental authorities could oblige landlords of
unoccupied buildings to give them the right to use the buildings up to 12
years. During all those years the State could provide the buildings to
homeless people, do construction and fixation to the buildings necessary for
a decent housing, with a minimal compensation to landlords. The deputies who
challenged the proposed Law claimed this violated the right to property and
equality. The Council did not find any violation because it stated that the
Law provided for procedural safeguards, that a compensation to the landlord
would be set by a judge and that the aim pursued in implementing the
procedure (access to housing to homeless people) overweighed other
considerations and interests.